Alice Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc.

B-275477 Feb 24, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The bidder whose bid was most advantageous to the government. Bidders were to supply a unit and extended price for each CLIN and a total price for each contract period. The solicitation's CLINs were broken down by the types of tasks associated with repairing and replacing several different types of roofing systems. This action prompted Port to file a protest in our Office in which it argued that Alice's bid was unbalanced. The contracting officer reviewed Alice's bid again and concluded that it was indeed unbalanced. Alice filed the instant protest on November 15 challenging the decision that its bid was mathematically and materially unbalanced. Or whether the bid is based on nominal prices for some work and enhanced prices for other work. View Decision Matter of: Alice Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. File: B-275477 Date: February 24, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Alice Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. protests as improper the rejection of its bid as mathematically and materially unbalanced under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DADA18-96-D-0021, issued by the Department of the Army for roofing repair and replacement. We deny the protest. The Army issued this solicitation on August 8, 1996, to furnish all plant, labor, equipment, and materials necessary to repair and replace roofing on miscellanous-type buildings at Fort Sam Houston, Camp Bullis, and Army Reserve Centers in San Antonio, Texas. The bidder whose bid was most advantageous to the government, considering only price, would be awarded a fixed-price requirements contract for 1 base year and 1 option year. Section B of the solicitation listed 105 contract line items (CLIN) for each contract period, along with the agency's estimated quantities for each item. Bidders were to supply a unit and extended price for each CLIN and a total price for each contract period. Each bidder's overall price would be determined by multiplying the bid prices by the estimated quantities for each of the 210 CLINs in the solicitation. The solicitation's CLINs were broken down by the types of tasks associated with repairing and replacing several different types of roofing systems. Thus, for each contract period, the solicitation contained 16 CLINs for roof decking, sheathing, and framing systems; 9 CLINs for removing and installing various roof insulation systems; 33 CLINs for removing, repairing, and replacing various types of roofing systems; 26 CLINs for removing and replacing roof flashing systems; 20 CLINs for miscellaneous roof accessories and items of work; and 1 CLIN for bonding. The Army received six bids at the following evaluated prices: Alice: $3,588,340 Cram Roofing: 3,750,514 Port: 4,546,310 Beldon Roofing: 4,960,822 Rain King: 5,045,155 A.D. Willis: 6,047,630 The contracting officer's review of the bids showed that Alice had submitted a unit price of 1 cent for each of 56 line items, raising the concern that the firm's bid might be unbalanced. [1] However, the contracting officer's review of the firm's pricing led her to conclude otherwise, and she awarded the contract to Alice. This action prompted Port to file a protest in our Office in which it argued that Alice's bid was unbalanced. In preparing her response to that protest, the contracting officer reviewed Alice's bid again and concluded that it was indeed unbalanced, for the reasons discussed below. The Army terminated Alice's contract on November 5 and awarded the contract to Port on November 7. Port withdrew its protest. Alice filed the instant protest on November 15 challenging the decision that its bid was mathematically and materially unbalanced. The firm supplemented its protest with supporting information on November 18. [2] An examination of bid unbalancing has two aspects. Westbrook Indus., Inc., 71 Comp.Gen. 139 (1992), 92-1 CPD Para. 30. First, the bid must be evaluated mathematically to determine whether each item carries its share of the cost of the work plus overhead and profit, or whether the bid is based on nominal prices for some work and enhanced prices for other work. Id. Unbalancing typically arises either between base period prices and option period prices or, in a requirements-contract solicitation such as this one, between line items for different goods or services. Custom Envtl. Serv., Inc., B-252538, July 7, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 7. If a bid is found to be mathematically unbalanced, it must be evaluated to determine the cost impact of the price skewing. Where there is reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid would result in the lowest ultimate cost to the government, the bid is materially unbalanced and may not be accepted. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec.